You are here: / / THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED A PARTIAL VERDICT WITHOUT INTERVIEWING...
,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED A PARTIAL VERDICT WITHOUT INTERVIEWING THE JUROR WHO HAD INFORMED THE COURT SHE COULD NOT CONTINUE DELIBERATING BECAUSE SHE WAS SUFFERING ANXIETY ATTACKS; BECAUSE THE JUROR WAS NOT QUESTIONED, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW WHETHER THE PARTIAL VERDICT WAS REACHED BEFORE THE JUROR BECAME UNABLE TO CONTINUE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge should have interviewed a juror who said she was suffering anxiety attacks and could not continue deliberations. The judge did not question the juror and accepted a partial verdict, without knowing whether the partial verdict was reached before the juror became unable to continue:

“The Court of Appeals, in People v Buford (69 NY2d 290, 299), set forth the basic framework to be followed when conduct occurs during a trial that may be the basis for disqualifying a juror. The court should conduct an in camera inquiry of the juror, in which counsel should be permitted to participate if they desire, and evaluate the nature and importance of the information and its impact on the case. In addition, the trial court’s reasons for its ruling should be placed on the record . . . [and] the court may not speculate as to possible partiality of the juror” … . “Although the Court of Appeals acknowledged that an ‘in camera inquiry may not be necessary in the unusual case . . . where the court, the attorneys, and defendant all agree that there is no possibility that the juror’s impartiality could be affected and that there is no reason to question the juror,’ here, defense counsel wanted the juror to be questioned” … .

The Supreme Court erred in failing to conduct an in camera “probing and tactful inquiry” (People v Buford, 69 NY2d at 299) of juror number 11 before accepting the partial verdict … . As a result of the court’s failure to make any inquiry of the juror, it is unknown whether the juror became unable to serve before, or after, the jury had reportedly reached a verdict on one of the counts … . People v Moody, 2021 NY Slip Op 07559, Second Dept 12-29-21

 

You might also like
THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS SENT TO DEFENDANT IN AN ENVELOPE WHICH INCLUDED OTHER NOTICES, A VIOLATION OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
Presumption Vehicle Was Being Driven with the Owner’s Consent (Vehicle & Traffic Law 388) Was Not Overcome by Testimony of Vehicle Owner and Her Daughter—Summary Judgment Should Not Have Been Awarded on that Ground
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY UNDER CONTRACT WITH NURSING HOME MAY BE LIABLE IN TORT TO THIRD PARTY INJURED BY ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION.
THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED FACTS THAT WOULD SUPPORT PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE ANSWER DESPITE THE FAILURE TO MAKE A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS; THE DEFENDANT GETS A SECOND CHANCE TO ADD AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IF THE COURT GRANT’S LEAVE TO AMEND (SECOND DEPT). ​
IT WAS ALLEGED DEFENDANTS-ATTORNEYS DID NOT INSTRUCT THE DECEDENT TO REVOKE THE TOTTEN TRUSTS SO THE FUNDS WOULD BE DISTRIBUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH HER WISHES AS SET OUT IN THE WILL AND TRUST DRAFTED BY DEFENDANTS; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES IN THIS FOIL PROCEEDING; THE RESPONDENTS DID NOT PROVIDE THE BULK OF THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS UNTIL AFTER THE ARTICLE 78 WAS BROUGHT; RESPONDENTS DID NOT PRESENT AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO INITIALLY DISCLOSE THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE MODIFIED THE PARENTAL ACCESS PROVISIONS OF THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE ORDER ISSUED AFTER A TRAVERSE HEARING FINDING DEFENDANTS WERE NOT PROPERLY... ALTHOUGH THE DOCTORS WHO TREATED PLAINTIFF IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM WERE NOT EMPLOYED...